treasure on the republican line. good morning. -- patricia, good morning. caller: what i do not understand is the fact that the democrats have been in charge of this situation since 2007 and have been blaming bush, bush, bush for everything. they would not let him sign bills or do certain things. it was the democrats making the calls about where the money should be spent. host: since we're focusing on what the commission recommended and what should be done -- caller: i am getting to that. i am putting a light out there that people seem to be forgetting. host: what would you like to see happen? have you read the commission? caller: i just retired just now 66. i just started to get social security and medicare. that is what i want to see everyone do. wait until you are old enough.

i worked with people in the government and retired, go out the front door and retire, then come back in the back door and get their same drop. guest: well, i do not quite know how to respond to that. that is a problem in the department of defense. there are quite a contrast -- contract workers who are retired after 25 years and they go back to work as private contractors for the department of defense using this deals they developed. -- the skills. we could now run the department without their experience, but it is not an issue that was addressed in the report. host: mike from six mile, south dakota. you are on the former congressman john spratt. caller: i am in district 3. how does the idea of shared

desire cars break down with the idea of raising taxes on people with more money versus cutting benefits for people who have less money? that is a big deal for me. i think for most democrats come no one minds. the idea that we need to get people on medicare or medicaid and give tax breaks to the wealthiest does not fly with most of us. says weongress and ryan samen n will achieve 4 million to 5 million in cuts and at the same time, cut taxes almost as much. and spending adjustments of four trillion dollars, in saying that if you did not do the tax cut, you would not have to do the spending cuts to accomplish what you have accomplished. that has been an issue, but not

with the commission. the commission stated as one of dozen principles that it should be equally distributed across the population. those that achieved more, should do more. at the right and plan -- the ryan plan would virtually eliminate the cuts -- the tax on capital gains and wipe out the state tax. you can make adjustments to all of those. host: let's hear from ron in minnesota. welcome. caller: my question is they had in the news about ge and offshore accounts. it seems that congress rights laws to make of that possible.

host: looking at ge. corporate loopholes and all of that. guest: they simply takes the code and use it at this it is to determine tax liability. -- they simply take the tax code and use it as it is to determine tax liability. host: so take us through briefly what would change the corporate tax rate if you had your way. guest: ryan would take a corporate tax rates down to 20% to 25%. the commission would take the corporate tax rate down to 30% to 35%, but that would depend on tradeoffs. it would have to be paid for. it would have to be offset. but the commission wants to do is broaden the tax base as we

did in 1986 so you can bring down individual rates and corporate rates. if you do not broaden the base, you do not get the tax cuts. host: our guest, john spratt. he is a member of the national commission on fiscal responsibility and reform. thank you for being here. he helped us kick off the series we are doing this week looking at the commission's recommendations. tomorrow we will look restructuring medicare and medicaid. wednesday, defense spending cuts and what those would mean. thursday we will look reforming tax policy. friday we will focus on social security changes. that is all for "washington journal: today. -- "washington journal" today. we will see you tomorrow morning

at 7:00. >> good morning. welcome to the woodrow -- woodrow wilson center. the show is being broadcast live around the world. permit me to say a word about the wilson center. it is the official memorial to woodrow wilson, our 28 president. we tried to serve as a bridge between the world of scholars and the world of public officials appeared and in other words, to commemorate the scholar of public debt and public policy concerns of president wilson, who have a long, distinguished career in the educational world and and scholarly world worl

before entering politics. i am robert hathaway. we meet today at a time of considerable turmoil and uncertainty in the u.s.- pakistan relationship. one hears of growing course of voices on both sides questioning whether it is even possible to create a long-term partnership countries. twn the two questioning whether there exists an interest of commonality and interest to sustain such partnership. the early months of 2011 have been a particularly rocky period for the relationship. this led several international paper's to talk about this

relationship. so today is an especially timely moment to hear from one of pakistan's most senior, most highly-regarded officials. our guest today is dr. abdul hafeez shaikh, who is pakistan's minister of finance, revenue, economic affairs, and statistics. he has had a long and distinguished career as a senior policy maker, a politician, as the world bank official, as a scholar, and in business. a few years ago he served as a finance minister in the province of pakistan's largest and most

important provinces, and the home to the leading commercial city. under his tenure many people thought that the finances turned around and tended to give dr. abdul hafeez shaikh credit for that. he subsequently served for several years as the federal privatization an.isitati he was voted as the pakistans business community man of the year. i think you begin to get a sense of the regard with which he is regarded in pakistan. he also holds a ph.d. in economics. he has agreed to speak with us for 15 or 20 minutes today.

after which point, he has agreed to take questions from audiences. we are delighted to have you, and we turned things over to you now. -- we turn things over to you now. >> thank you, sir, for that very nice introduction. i should hang around here in the u.s. more often if i keep getting such a recognition. no one seems to have much good to same about me back and pakistan. -- no one seems to have much good to say about me back in pakistan. [laughter]

i am delighted to be here. think you for the invitation. i think we are meeting at a critical time. the pakistan/u.s. relationship has a significance that it has never had before. it is seen as important, both for the security and peace of the region, and perhaps, for the whole world. the need to learn from the past has played in two recent experiences and to shape and configure the relationship to fulfill the expectations and needs of the two parties, and is more critical than it has ever been. the u.s. and pakistan have enjoyed a long relationship. it has been episodic and transactional at times, and

sometimes there has been a desire to make it strategic and under sustained footing. i've been one of the key features that has categorize this relationship is the degree of variation that it has seen. for pakistan has sometimes -- were pakistan has sometimes been the most valued ally, and sometimes the most sanctioned ally. right now in the post 9/11 scenario it is labeled as a non- nato ally. the little security considerations have often led to government -- political security considerations have often led to government sanctions as well. the key growth that pakistan had in the 1960's and 2000 have somehow been linked to the u.s.

external assistance, or at least a coincided with times of external assistance from the u.s. a key feature of this has been it has coincided with force. in the first case, the cold war. in the second war, the soviet war. and the third case, the so- called terror war. sadly, in each case, when the war has ended, so has external assistance. this departure of the u.s. from the region has had tragic consequences. at least in the last case. now it seems like we're entering a new era. or we have entered a new era. the question that we want to ask is why did the u.s. walk away in the past, and how can we learn to put this relationship on a

sounder, more solid, more which is notoodinooting, subject and vulnerable to shocks? i think one of the answers that the u.s. finds it easy to walk away is to reduce and ship was based on non-economic considerations -- finds is easy to walk away is because it was not based on economic considerations. i think the new administration and government appear to have recognized this missing dimension in the relationship and they are trying to remedy that. we will see how it unfolds. the second point from the variation and the need to learn

from this time parts of the engagements of the past is the economic relations have always been bad between the u.s. and pakistan there has been a significant interaction, but it has never realize the true and potential. in spite of that, there is a significant degree of economic relations that have been there throughout and has survived politics. trade, for example, is roughly $5 billion per year. the government to government assistance now targeted at $1.5

billion for economic matters per year. the second question that we want to think about is how to seize the potential that exists and build upon the major level of economic integration to a new plateau, which truly realizes the full potential in tralee insulated from happenings from happenings and franand fronts. let me turn to pakistan and what has been happening there. first of all, democracy is back. it is back with all its vibrancy, noise, and the volume in this functioning. -- and disfuntioning. there has been a period where

the president voluntarily handed power is back to the parliament, and the parliament has handded over responsibility to the counties. -- provinces. this is what most people in this room would want and most people in pakistan would want. the local levels are all departments within the prevention. the more resources they have, the more they will be able to respond to the demands of the people.

so the service delivery can be improved, and this has been, i think, a dramatic and far- reaching step, and the consequences will begin to be seen over time. another aspect of the new democratic dispensation is that we have institutions that are working for transparency and for accountability. the likes of which have never been seen before. again, in the first parliament anywhere, the chief responsibility is a person whose official title is the leader of the opposition in the parliament. the leader of the opposition and the parliament is also the chairman of the public accounts committee, which is the chief accountability organization of

the government. so you have this wonderful experience of the leader of the opposition and the leader of the opposition, who anybody can ask a question of and demand an answer from. he does that. you also have a supreme court with the chief justice and the court is highly active in the scrutinizing and investigating and probing in summoning and asking all sorts of questions from everybody in the government. this again, i think, is an exciting development in makes our society open. it makes officials accountable. we also have a free media. again, totally free, able to comment and critique and question and criticize.

and every evening there are a good least 15 channels that have talk shows which do very little else but focus on public issues, and i think they have done their job with enthusiasm. turning to economic matters, the government inherited a difficult situation and an economy at the verge of collapse. a lot of steps have been done to try to restore macroeconomic stability, try to mobilize taxation, try to cut down expenditures. even in this most recent budget, expenditures were frozen at levels of last year, which means our real reduction of 10% to 12%. new taxes have been levied on

capital gains stocks and stock brokers. new sectors have been brought in. fertilizers and insecticides -- pesticides, 7000 new people with multiple bake accounts. international travel. those who are not paying taxes are being pursued to broaden the income tax met. so you have a new drive, a new initiative, and a goal is to raise the abysmally low tax to gdp ratio from less than 10% to closer to 14% over the next three to four years. at the same time while these painful decisions including passing energy prices, passing the international oil price to the consumers, there has been a

conscious attempt to have a social safety net, to not forget the already forgotten and try to reach out to the poorest of the poor through automated systems of cash transfers. this is a system that now even the word bank has accepted as one of the best-managed and executed in the world. so a combination of balance is being struck between looking after the very poor during the transition well going on with the most difficult decisions -- while going on with the most difficult decisions and a political environment that is very conducive and remains fragile. on top of this, pakistan has had multiple challenges to face over this last year.

our soldiers have sacrificed their lives. our citizens have been targeted. the exchequer had to bear the burden. this is a war to which we are committed. and naturally in the middle of a war, you cannot start your soldiers, so the pietas to go on. have to goifights on. second, we have the greatest disasters of our history because of the floods of 2010 when 20 million people were affected and lives were shattered. over $10 billion of damage occurred. the third, we now have to struggle and get exposure to the rising prices of oil.

-- third, we now have to struggle to get exposure to the rising prices of oil. it is likely to remain above 100. in spite of that, like i said, the government and the people have shown resilience. we had continued to pursue the economic reform agenda, trying to focus on public sector efficiency, eating the cabinet has been slashed by two-thirds from 60 to 22. our government budget for development programs or government projects was slashed from 280 billion by 100 billion to 180. the idea is to insure the security of public finances to maintain a fiscal discipline, to bring down fiscal the opposite, which when the government came into power was above 7.5% to

around 5% to 5.5%. in trying to create a platform for growth. we have been working on a growth strategy to get jobs to young people and get back on the trajectory of growth approaching 6% or so. some of the results are beginning to show, and i am happy to share with you. the external export france have shown a dramatic increase of 26% in the last nine months. if you compare february with february of last year, the growth is a phenomenal 46%. exports are likely to cost 24 billion, the highest ever. similarly, imports are crossing a high level. the benefits of these are being

shown in the reserves of foreign exchange, which have also reach the highest level. we have rationalized the government program, and we feel the combination of all of these must be shared. merging benefits in the economy must be shared with large segments of the people. the government has ensigns of buys them to grow more. this is paying off. we are expected not to have a bumper wheat crop, the highest ever. because the pricing is geared in such a way, it is believed to

lead to large-scale prosperity in the countryside. these are some of the emerging areas of positive results, and i turn now in my last set of comments to u.s./pakistan economic relations. i believe because of the reformist government in pakistan, a democratic government that is not burdened with trying to do anything as to achieve legitimacy, and we have a global conservation in which the destiny's appear to be tied for some time, and hopefully for a longer time, that the new way of thinking about how to secure the foundations of this relationship is indeed the responsibility of leadership of the two sides. i think the u.s. government has responded or tried to respond to

this challenge, and the new external assistance law has been passed, which attempts to give $1.5 billion every year. in reality that amounts disbursed are less, but this reflects an institutional arrangement in which the countries can work out. five areas have been identified under the institutional arrangement for focus. these are energy security, food security, economic growth, particular focus on the affected areas in the tribal region, and social sector, including education and health. i believe that if the money is disbursed, and if it is widely, this can have far-reaching consequences. at the same time, given the

of thes and requirements a country and the potential that exists in the private sector and the lessons from the past of not relying on government alone, it is very important to think of reforms for business to business dialogue and for ventures in which the u.s. businesses can make money so that they remain motivated and participate in the economic development in our country. so several opportunities exist. one of which is trying to develop. that is the idea of pakistan and the american enterprise of $3 billion. it is under the process of legislation, and we are optimistic that once that is passed, it will be an area where

u.s. businesses can draw and leverage to do larger projects, and it will be a potential magnet for attracting some kind of investors to pakistan. about pakistan in general, it is a country with tremendous opportunities. sometimes i am asked which are the sectors that people should focus on. my answer is that government ministers are particularly inept in answering which questions, because if i knew which sector, i would be in business myself. i think that everywhere, and i have had the opportunity to work in 2000 countries, and i think as a student of development opportunities in pakistan are second to none compared to the other 24 countries are work in. the opportunities and

agricultural and services and telecommunications and energy and in mining and oil and gas in particular and everywhere you look, you will see opportunities. the question is, is there a liberal investment regime that allows people to come and participate? on that score, let me share with you the nature of the pakistan investment regime. i believe it is the most liberal or one of the most liberal in the entire world. we do not discriminate against foreigners. foreigners are welcome in any sector of the economy. they can participate 1% of equity or 100% of the equity. though -- there is no requirement for any local partner. there are no limits on how much capital you can bring in or take out. there are no limits on how much money you can repatriate in the form of dividends, profits, or licenses or what ever.

so here is an environment that is very conducive and very welcoming, and the government is beginning hopefully an exciting vertization. for decisio above all, what one needs to do is instead of listening to the speeches of ministers is to talk to your own colleagues who are already there. the american business association of pakistan, you can talk to them. most of them are really expanding in the last two or three years. the state governor was telling me they have been the best for most of them. they will share this information with you. if they want to keep pakistan as a secret for themselves, then of

course you could always look at their books. they are available. so i think i will stop now, and hopefully we can have interactive discussion. i would like to learn from you. closing so enclosinin appreciate the u.s. government for the focus and leadership they are giving to pakistan, for the recognition of the strategic nature of our relationship and the benefits that will accrue to the world if we invest into this relationship and recognize each other's strengths and capacities to contribute, and the fact that they have initiated a strategic dialogue between our two countries to which pakistan has responded which covers a large set of areas, including

security and defense, energy, economy, and trade, and so on. also, i want to end by sinking the u.s. government for the support they gave us, particularly the rescue and relief operations and our floods, and for being a part of the international coalition through the united nations outworked in supporting our suffering brothers and sisters, and also for the support they have extended to us in trying to help us at other multilateral settings. thank you very much. [applause] >> think you, mr. minister, -- thank you, if mr. minister, for a very thorough and occur -- set

of remarks. in fact, your optimism and confidence was really striking. because it flies in the face of the conventional wisdom. maybe i am talking to the wrong people, but when i read the pakistan press, when i talk to they do notriend'ni friends, seem to have nearly optimism and confidence you do. i would like to get your views as to why that is. how do you explain the gap as a were between what you say is the real situation and the general perception that things are not going particularly well, and perhaps going in the wrong direction? is this simply a question of the right information not getting

out, or is something else at work here? >> that is a good question, and i myself think about it a lot, because your observation about the negative perception in certain segments of our people i think is well founded, and we have to obviously take some blame for the failure to communicate our point of view as effectively as one can. at the same time, i believe that when you live in an era where you have so much capacity of other inheritors to get their points of view -- of other

narrative points of view. and when you have your own free press in your country, which is just beginning to define the roles of the game, which are not developed at the moment, -- someone asked me how do you feel about getting your point of view across and how you feel? i said it is like if you are in the democratic party in the u.s., you have one republican party to deal with and maybe one fox channel to deal with, but if you are right democratic party in pakistan, you have maybe five republican parties to deal with in 15 fox channels to deal with, and it can't get a bit daunting to get your point of view across in that situation.

so i do not know. of course, one can try to get the narrative across, and i would say also in the u.s. that we have a question of public lack of trust or trust that the sick, and i think sometimes when we talk on this issue with the u.s. counterparts within the strategic dialogue and public diplomacy, both sides attempt to figure out, because we also pose this question to the u.s.. why is it if you have good intentions and trying to support our country that there is the point of view does not

get across? why is there a trust deficit? i think this is a question that needs greater scrutiny by people you know who are experts in this issue. i think within the u.s. there are all sorts of interest and all sorts of points of view, and there are two or three things that somehow go against us. one is there is a perception that a lot of money is going to pakistan. at a time when there is a requirement for fiscal constraints and expenditure cutting at home. so we have to come out and explain the facts. i think it is largely omitted that pakistan is a beneficiary of tens of billions of dollars. the truth is that in the

arrangement this year we have not even received 300 million. but when people go to the hill and around talking about tens of billions of dollars, and you have public representatives, they surely have to think about it. i think foreign assistance never has a good, strong lobby, so we do not want to think of pop song as a country that is primarily attempting to simply get foreign assistance. -- so we do not want to think of pakistan as a country that is primarily attempting to simply get a foreign assistance. we're saying let's open our markets to each other so we can get an arrangement through -- so that american businesses can flourish pakistan and we can

flourish here, and it is good for everybody. this we can approach with the european union. i am happy to tell you that we have succeeded in opening new areas with the european union for trade, because this is the message we want to give. is that if we are to have lasting relations and break stereotypes, and it is important that we focus on trade. obviously these areas have to be looked at. so, yes, i think a lot of work needs to be done by both sides. but we are to try and get this across. especially in this country there asymmetric. a

whereas what we want to get across, which of course we as a small third world country have difficulty getting across in a place like this, but part of the reason i am here is to do it in my own small way, and to get the benefit of people like yourself to subsequently take the message to a larger audience and more -- in a more effective way than i can. >> thank you. we will not turn to the audience. but remember mind -- let me remind audience that he is the prime minister for statistics and economic affairs. i think to be fair to our guest and given our limited amount

of time, i would request that you direct your questions to the minister in the areas for which he has responsibility. i will ask you to wait until we get a microphone to you to identify yourself and to keep your remarks very short perio. >> thank you very much for the very upbeat appraisal of the situation. i have two questions. they are not entirely related. the first is you spoke about the prospects for business, american business and pakistan, investment. i think that one of the holdups has been the lack of investment treaty. my impression is when this was negotiated or effort was made during president bush's visit that the holdup was on the and i washi side,

wondering if you could fill us in on where that sits today. the second question is another area. a very sweeping change, lots of new responsibilities to the provinces. i am wondering about the financial side. do the provinces have the basis for paying for these new opportunities for these new functions, and in particular, was wondering about the, and i think it is part of the evolution, the fact that the provinces now will have the right to borrow money. thank you. >> yes, excellent questions. first of all, i share with you my own humble view about the role of the business treaty in promoting investment. my own view, and it could be wrong, is that the role of having a business investment

treaty between two countries and generally promoting investment between countries is usually not so great. of course it might provide certain extra safeguards, which might alleviate some super risk adverse people's concerns, but we have a thriving and historically tested achievement of so many u.s. companies that it is not a new terrain. second, the last discussion we had on the business investment treaty, which probably has been a really good exercise for lawyers on both sides is that the u.s. was coming up with the new template for future business investment treaties or bits as

they are called come in once that was made, things could restart. impression of whereo things are. the second point about the evolution -- devolution. it is very important to recognize it is going on both on the administration side and the resources side. in fact, it is much more drastic on the resource side. what is being devoted to the provinces are 18 ministries that to be with the federal government's and provincial governments, and it has now been decided that to get rid of this overlap and have excessive government, that this should be solely the domain of the provinces. on the finance side, previously

we had a visible pull all the taxes that are raised. -- visible pool of all of the taxes that are raised. 45% to go to all of the provinces. 55% would go to the federation. now 60 percent said would go to the provinces. and about 40 percent would go to the center. this is a very dramatic shift, and as i said, it is about 400 billion rupees. it offers a real problem for the federal government, because they are responsible for debt servicing of the past. they are responsible for the security expenditures, and for running stability and government at the center. on your question about whether they will be able to borrow,

provinces have always been able to borrow from international agencies, but it has been done with the cooperation of the bubble government. -- for the federal government. only they can borrow through an arrangement of the federal government. yes? >> we will get you in a minute. all the way in the back. >> yes. thank you for your remarks, mr. minister. i do have a question about the louman berger. i am wondering if you implied it is not essential to pakistan to have it. perhaps you could clarify that. then i have another question, which is if you feel that it is

still a good idea, where would you from your advantage point particularly like to see those moneys go? what would be from a pakistan perspective the best outcome? >> first of all, i believe it is very important for pakistan/u.s. economic relationships. second, i believe it is very important as a symbol of the u.s. government and its congress' commitment to a new democratic government in pakistan. 3, i think that if it is dispersed in a proper way and configured in a proper way and implemented in a proper way, then it can have a far-reaching

consequences for the people of pakistan. and altering some of the misconceptions that are there, but of course, in the larger scheme of things one has to see how much impact something of that magnitude can have. in my own view, i think i have sat down with u.s. officials, the u.s. administrator, the u.s. representative and pakistan, and with the pakistan /afghanistan special envoy, who was a great friend of pakistan and a great loss for us, and identified five areas, which our energy security, food security, infrastructure development, private sector growth, which includes the enterprise development fund, and the social

sector, and i think the amounts were also dedicated for these sectors in particular amount for five moyears. so i think it is a promising program, and in no way do i want to appear to be either not thankful it or for it. >> down here in the front. >> with the pakistan american leadership center. i think at a certain point we need to go beyond the statement of we need market access in the u.s. from pakistan. we have been working on some of these things, and there has to be recognition that one of the largest export to the u.s. is in textiles and apparel. at the same time, we have an

american textile industry that is very protective against any kind of production for pakistan products. there needs to be a cooperation between both of our sides to figure out what specific items we can have those negotiations on and get that market access for. my second question has to do with we have this environment coming up for congress is looking to pass some of these fta's where there will be an opportunity for this market access to actually get bundled with that and passed. if we kick it more details on the strategy. the second thing is when we have things like the american enterprise fund, that is where the questions come in where why do we need this overseen? part of that is to see very smooth and pathways for u.s. businesses to go into india, which is next door.

i think a lot of the comparative analyzing is going on when u.s. companies are looking to base their companies. i know you were in a position to describe what the competitive advantage is, but if you could also talk about what pakistan can do to facilitate business is going into pakistan. whether that is sponsoring a trade delegation or business delegations, because i think there is a convening power of government where we can facilitate these private sector missions to pakistan. >> mr. minister, you notice this is a very savvy audience. everyone takes advantage of the microphone to ask two questions. [laughter] >> yes, should i just selectively pick one of them to answer. [laughter] you are right that in the end

what the parties want is the upper hand on the political constraints. clearly we have to desire and strive for the trade regime that is as open as possible, but at the same time we have to recognize we may not succeed or we may not succeed entirely because of domestic political considerations. so you were absolutely correct in saying that you do not want to bang your head against a brick wall, but sometimes if you try hard enough, a way is found. your other point about -- i think it is a general one that i can only agree to that you have to do many things to achieve the goal of trade promotion. where there is trade delegations come of business delegations,

and fares and so on. ambitious goal is a multi-year process. here we are at least trying to get the business investment treaty done, which in many cases the preludin towards -- is a prelude towards the fta. >> since we are almost running out of time, i will ask people to restrict themselves to one question now. this gentleman here and then this gentleman. >> andrew wilson. i have a question on tail taxation. the pakistan business council called on the pakistan government to diversify the tax base and diversify collection,

and i would like your views on how we can go about doing this. ." i think this has been a hot topic in pakistan -- >> i think this has been a hot topic in pakistan. first, there has been a massive amount of time spent in political dialogue, and not just with politicians and political parties, but also with stakeholders, including the pakistan business council. i was the one who organized the meeting with the president. we are grateful to them. there is an emerging coalition that is saying these are areas we cannot ignore any more in need to focus on them. as i have said, we have already taken steps to bring a totally new sector that are outside the net, including textile, which is the most powerful sector and

pakistan. it has always resisted to being taxed. now it is being taxed. fertilizer is being taxed. surgical goods. pesticides. attractors. in addition to that, there are thousands of products that are in the system. we oppose a new tax on capital gains. again, but entirely new sector. agricultural income tax, there has been a lot of discussion of that. i want to say we are committed to improving the tax system, which is in the provincial governments. we are having a dialogue with the provincial governments, and we are trying to raise the power for them that either to raise the tax collection on agricultural or we have to think in terms of other mechanisms, because nobody can escape taxes.

as i said, we have identified 700,000 people. we are going after them. the chairman of the revenue services is having dialogue with the imf and others, sharing these experiences. we identified 4000 of the most important pakistani firms that are evading taxes. the chairman of revenue service came to me and said what can we do? they are the most powerful people in the country. i set prosecute them. so that very big cases were registered against all of those companies. in terms of what are we doing to change the administration? a new chairman of the revenue service has been put forward. he has made hundreds of changes

and adopted leadership. these things take time. if you are running a marathon, -- we feel like this is a process that has to take some time. if we talk of all of these leaders who have transformed their countries, but the success was achieved in the 10 to 15 year. i am not saying we will wait that long, but at least let's wait 15 months after the changes have been made and so on. >> the gentleman here. >> consultant to the world bank. mr. minister, congratulations on the fantastic presentation. thank you very much.

quick question. this is regarding the energy sector. he spoke about it. -- you spoke about it. can you say a few words about what the policy is to attract investment in that sector and the shortages of electricity? >> the problem of the shortages is because of multiple reasons. we can decompose this into three types of issues. number one is that government has not have the money in the past to pay every single producer of electricity according to the demands. that hasthat has greeted the ser that problem -- created a secular debt problem. there has been a system created

so this distortion is minimized. an effort was made to inject transparency into this and to minimize the disruption -- distortion. the government has made extraordinarily bold decisions in passing on the previously- suppressed prices of electricity to consumers. prices have been raised more than 60% in the last two years. even now, for the government, that is pretty -- they are now being increased. the effort of management, all of the government companies, distribution companies, related companies, the boards of

directors have been completely changed. the people of been put there are all professionals, all people that you would recognize as good people, that they will stand up to political interference, that they are knowledgeable, that they will scrutinize the management performance. how are they performing in terms of professional conduct and commercial considerations? i think that a lot of the old things are being renovated. as far as investment policy, i think that is a sector that is historically enjoy -- has historically enjoyed a great deal of international participation kid if anything, it has acquired a greater urgency -- participation. if anything, it has acquired a

greater urgency. there are new ways of acting that are open and available and are being unveiled of -- availed of. i see a lot of interest within the u.s. and the companies we are talking to. this is an area of focus for us. >> mr. minister, i think we could go on all day. unfortunately, you have other obligations. i think we have to for you at this time. we wish you very good luck for the balance of your stay. i think you will find a keen interest to work with you and your colleagues on what, after all, many of us believe is a joint enterprise. we wish you good luck. we thank you for joining us today. if you will join me in expressing our depreciation. -- appreciation.

[applause] we're now adjourned. >> thank you. have one request -- please come and visit us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> we have more live events coming up for you on the c-span networks. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the focus will be on white house speech writers. and norma of former speechwriters will participate -- a number of former speechwriters will participate. taking a look at prime-time programming, and tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, the future of unions, hosted by wayne state university. it will include members from various unions.

>> the jobs story on wireless is, frankly, a bigger one for the impact on the economy at large, as opposed to the micro- economic question as to whether it would give a set of carriers -- >> aneesh chopra joined our washington post guest reporters tonight on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> this year's studentcam, petition asked students to consider washington d.c. through their -- studentcam's competition asked students to consider washington, d.c., through their lens. >> i want to be a computer game programmer. >> i want to be a vet. >> i want to be the president.

>> i want to be a football player. >> i want to be an artist when i grow up you'd the mother are few things as fundamental to the american dream or as a -- grow up. there are few things as fundamental to the american dream or as essential as education. at a time when our children are competing with kids in china and india, the best job qualification you can have is a college degree or advanced training. in a paradox of american life, when it has never been more prudent to have a higher-quality education, the cost has never been higher. the cost of tuition at private colleges has more than doubled, while costs at public institutions have nearly tripled. it compounds the problem. tuition has grown 10 times faster than family income, putting pressure on incomes that are already strained. >> from a student's perspective,

it can be a burden to go to college. it is very expensive for yourself and your family. i come from a middle-class family. deciding to go to college had a lot of trade-offs. i had to get rid of my car. i will still graduate with $10,000 of debt, which is a big trunk when you are out in the world getting a job -- chunk when you are out in the world getting a job. i do not know what the federal government says about rules. >> i've provided a letter of opportunity. it is a ladder, which requires efforts and initiatives. the wrongs need to be there -- rungs need to be there. of the most important rungs --

one of the most important rungs is education. >> for college to be affordable, there needs to be public institutions funded by taxpayer dollars. we rely heavily on appropriations. have no other way of generating revenue -- we have no other way of generating revenue. you are paying for the buildings, operation, upkeep. the main revenue source is tuitioni if reparations from the state continue to go down -- is tuition. if appropriations from the state continue to go down, tuition continue to go up. >> for private institutions, escalating cost are due to

multiple factors, including having to maintain low student to faculty ratios. the federal government has had a limited role in higher education. this issue presents a national concern. >> it is absolutely critical for the nation, if we're going to continue to be or want to be primary, economic powerhouses of the world, for us to have first- class, best in the world education in higher education. one way or another, it is essential that the government ensures that we continue to have top-notch education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. >> however, some view the combating the issue by the setting price gaps could deviate from the federal government's historically limited role in

higher education. >> regulation of the marketplace that we do is to promote the inefficient functions of the marketplace. we do not involve the government to the extent of setting surprise, price, and demand -- supply, price, and demand. we would have to massively increased taxes to pay for college with government money. we would have to shift towards shrinking the percentage of high-school graduates that go to college. those are two really bad choices. >> right now, we are involved mostly through cal grants and

guaranteed student loans. i am involved, additionally, as a member of the senate finance committee. we help make college more affordable by deducting college income for middle -- college tuition for middle-income families. the student has the choice of taking -- going to whatever choice is yours you want to. >> the federal government has taken a number of actions to address the issue contingent with student loans are administered by making direct loans -- the issue is handled, with student loans now administered by making direct loans. the have modified the income -- they had modified income based recruitment program -- repayment program. washington is not solely responsible for addressing this.

>> we are the government. there is no separate entity. if we as people feel like education is not getting that type of support, funding rights or whatever, then it is our mandate for the people to take action. >> i want to be an officer in the united states marine corps. >> i want to be a journalist for "the new york times." >> i want to pursue a career in the music industry. >> there is no doubt that higher education will play a separate role in all of our futures. >> it will manifest itself in different forms. >> as well as high school students and families around the nation, -- >> it is not the role of the government to provide us with a free ride. >> it is not their job to provide us with a free education or to set price. >> it is the role the federal government to provide us with the resources necessary to have

access to a college education. >> this freedom allows the invaluable opportunity to be whatever we aspire to be. >> in other words, to realize the american dream. >> go to studentcam.org to watch the winning videos and continue the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> some news to tell you about. while the u.s. has maintained its aaa credit rating, standard and poor's rating service has lowered its long-term outlook for u.s. debt from stable to negative because of risks from the deficit. the deficit grew to 11% of gdp in 2009, higher than the average of 2% to 5% in the previous six years. the epa budget for this year was cut by 16% in a measure signed by president obama last week. lawmakers say cutting federal

spending will help trim the deficit. the president of the national resources defense council, frances beinecke, was on this morning's "washington journal." host: frances beinecke is president of natural resources defense council. thank you for being with us. we will get to the bp oil spill later. i wanted to ask you about the epa. the epa took a big khit. we have a piece from "the new york times." what is the impact? guest: there are significant cuts to epa.

they insure we have clean air and clean water. those budget cuts will translate into cuts in local communities because they will cut critical dollars that are used for sewage treatment plants and for clean water drinking systems. when people say we're cutting epa, yes, but this translates into impact into communities all across the country. host: what do you think the impact of that will be? the article talks about tribal assistance grants. how will that be -- est: ware a country with an aging infrastructure. our safe drinking water systems are part of that infrastructure. clean water act began a whole long term process to clean u the waterways of america, to clean up our sewage treatment by providing sewage treatment.

that was 40 years ago. you have to upgrade and invest. by taking money out of the budget, it means that we will be seeing impairment from the aging sewage treatment systems. they were hoping to improve the qualities of these systems and they will not be able to do that. it is another example -- we have examples all over the country. the sewage treatment plants. i live in new york city. i have seen how the hudson river has been cleaned up. it is a great story. the fish are coming back. those kinds of uses of our waterways are put in jeopardy by

a decision like this. host: what does this signal to you over future funding of the epa? the cuts were not as deep as some thought they would be, except for agencies like the epa. host: -- guest: epa is very much in the site of the republican conservatives to look at that and to shrink government. interesting to me because call after call that we read really show -- poll after poll shows that i don't think there's not a person that does not think clean air and water is an inherited right that they have as an american. st. we will do with less regulation translates into impaired beer and water for the people all across america.

this is a fight that is not yet over -- for impaired air and water. this fight will recall from the budget for fiscal year 12 and will continue to focus attention on what the epa provides for the people of this country and whether americans -- and whether that is something americans are willing to give upp. weakis a fight that's across the community are going to be very involved in it in the months ahead. host: frances beinecke president of the natural resources defense council. this is a story from the ap out of tokyo. host: a recent story from "the

financial times." how are you -- how is the nrdc weighing in with what is happening in japan? guest: how do we take the lessons learned from japan and apply them to the nuclear power plants across america? the storage of spent fuel rods. it is the practice in japan and the united states to store those spent fuel rods on site. they have to be cooled on a regular basis. there is proposals to take them out of the cooling systems and put them in dry paths.

this is a call to provide oversight and review. ensure the we have the highest level of safety and that we deal with the problem of waste fuel, which will not come to grips with over the last several decades. we deal -- we feel a tremendous compassion for what is happening in japan, the result of the tsunami and the loss of lives, and now this nuclear disaster. nrdc, 're focused on at whether it is call plants or oil operations, how do we insure that we in the united states are operating with the highest level of oversight and that we can insure the american people the confidence that these are operated as safely as possible.

host: this is the o-year anniversary of the bp blowout in the gulf. this is from "usa today." frances beinecke, you served on the presidential commission to look into what happened and how to move forward. what is your biggest take away one year later? host: there are two things that are important. the oil industry is incredibly sophisticated, top-notch engineering. it is important that they have adequate safeguards, that they ensure the people that work on those rigs are protected to the maximum extent possible. that is the responsibility of the federal government. the oil is owned by the american

people. the marine environnt is also a public resource. the commission found that there is a systemic problem of what oversight on part of the federal agency,he interior department, and that the industry did not operate at the highest level of safety. both of those things need to change. we made specific recommendations for each of them. they are not yet in place. there's more awareness and oversight. there's a lot more that needs to be done. that is on the operations side of it. the science is still being done. 5 million barrels of oil spilled into the gulf. the scientific community is hard at work to figure out the long term damage to marine life in

the gulf. the second most proctive fishery in the country after alaska. this is an abundant and productive marine environment. everyone loves to go to the gulf to experience that culture and seafood. it is empowered to understand the impact over the long term and to restore that fantastic ecosystem and to make sure it is resilient for e future. host: don joins us from oklahoma on the republican line. caller: i do not see why we should send money to the federal government just so they could hand it back to the states. we're going to make sure you do it right. that is playing loose with money. guest: the clean water act has

traditionally shared the cost with the state's. it is a federal mandate to clean up the water wes. -- waterways. both the states and the government are experiencing budgetary problems and challenges. across sharing is something that is important. -- that cross sharing is something that is important. it is a share departed and the shared minute. host: frances beinecke is our guest. let's go to john in massachusetts on our independent line. call: thank you for letting us kn what is going on. this is something that has been planned by the bush administration. those towers did not come down by accidents.

this is part of industry. having our hands in lobbying with the arabs and everything else -- remember when the bin laden family came here and grounded all the planes. no planes could leave the country. buthe bin laden family got to leave. we should deserve that obamacare. industry has been poisoning our waters. they can under fund the epa. you wonder what ever been americans and why the power plants and the wind up with cancer. our seafood has mercury in it. we deserve that. host: -- guest: one of the things you're

pointing at is that we need a clean energy program for america that makes us less dependent on foreign oil. we can do that through greater efficiencies in our buildings d our cars. that ian exciting new prospect for america. your point about health care provided -- that is a powerful one. the clean air act and clean water act, their mission is to protect public health. there is data on how that performance has protected and saved lives across america from heart attacks, respiratory diseases, asthmatic attacks. there is a long history of success of protecting our health, and that needs to continue to happen. epa reached a settlement with

the tennessee valley authority to close 18 boilers in north carolina and that will save lives across that region. we are looking at that region today appear it has been pummeled by the tornadoes. the epa -- the response believe they have is to protect the health of people across the country. host: we have a caller on twitter. guest: that is much too early to say. if you travel down there, you feel two things. the economic impact of the spill across four states was considerable. it was enormous. one well that went out of control and blew 5 million barrels of oil put the fishing and tourist industry out of

business for months. people in the tourist industry and the seafood industry are still reelg from bathat. tremendous uncertainty about whether the beaches will comeback. these things are recovering. this is an important region to support as they go through this difficult time. dolphins are washing up on shore with young babies. why is that? why is the death rate so high this year? they have to determine if that was spill-related. the reproduction of oysters is in the gulf -- the reproductive rates are weighed down -- are way down.

this needs to be investigated. 5,000 feet into the water. we're used to spills the com off a ship and we can see it all on the surface. this did not happen here. this was deep in the ocean. to see how that ocean was disbursed and into t reproductive tracts of organisms and how that translated up the food chain across the marine environment is somethg that the scientific community is working hard at. it has to be studied over several seasons. we saw from the exxon the of this spill in alaska, it impacted tent and 20 years after the spill -- the exxon valdez spill. that will be ongoing. one of the main areas of

recommendation of the commission was the importance of long-term monitoring to understand the consequences. just because you're not seeg oil coming out of the well head, to not assume it has vanished. host: frances beinecke served on the commission of the deepwater horizon of show -- independent scientists try to assess the environmental cost. this gets at what our guest was just talking about. some more numbers here. host: let's go to connecticut on

the democrat line. caller: good morning. thank you for sp spam -- think you for c-span. i would like to describe a product and i would like to tell you about a contract with bp and this product. have you heard of a product called hca-10? guest: no, i have not. caller: it is use for oil spill covery and restoration. it is a plant-based solution th binds and corrects it, and then blinds to oil, where the -- and then blinds to oil.

it can be used in deep water and it can be used in marshlands. i am little nervous. this product was actually going to be used in the contract by bp with a company, and the contract suddenly disappeared. the president of the company that makes this product told me that they were all set with bp to use this product for save cleanup of the gulf, and then suddenly there was no word of it. the contract disappeared. i would like to hear your thoughts. if people want to know more about this amazing product go towintechusa.com.

wintecusa.com. guest: thank you for telling us about that. one thing i was impressed about where the amount of ideas and products that people had to assist in the spill. one thing we found was that we were using the same technique to clean up the spill that we had used 20 years ago for the exxon valdez, and that virtually no ongoing research had been done over that 20-share period to make us better prepared or have it more successful product that could clear up the spill. one, i'm not surprised that this product was not used. i think people were inuch a

hurry to move forward that the various products out there and perhaps available did not get incorporated into the cleanup process. we recommended in the commission report is tha research and development on cleanup technologies be invested in and required by the industry and the investment by the federal government, and that preparation is imperative to successful cleanup. after the exx spill, years went by and bill level of complacency set in -- a lack of complacency set in. you should know what products are out there and you have them available to deploy immediately. one thing that happened in the gulf was the volume of the spill was so great that a lot of products when the volume was not available for the scale of spill

that this was. one thing that was clear was the work had not been done to fully understand the consequences of using the dispersant at a volume and at depth. it was used on the service of the exxon spill. much more research needs to be done to ensure the public and the federal regulators that the use is inappropriate, that it does -- if you're going to use a disbursing, you understand what the implications of its use our and the consequences of its use are. this is an exale of the need. we need to be better prepared

and weeed to resolve the issues that were raised in the response and in the products used this time around to ensure that the product that are used for a subsequent spill are as safe as possible and they are fully understood. and the once selected are available when a spill occurs. thank you for the question. -- and the ones selected are available when a spill occurs. host: one thing that did happen was the passage of the will act -- oil act. nothing has passed. guest: you are right. the oil and pollution act did pass one year after the exxon spill.

there was a lot of activity in congress looking at what should be improved for oil spill response. we made a lot suggestions. congress has not acted. i think that is unconscionable. there is tremendous pressure to advance offshore drilling. trying for more offshore development. the safeguard we recommeed, the ability of the interior department to do its job, the creation of an independent agency for safety enforcement, the increasing of the liability cap, $75 million -- these things need to be changed. this bill will cost bp more than $40 billion.

we have a statute that puts a cap on costs associated with that spill. that does not work for this country. that has to be changed. one of the most important recommdations of the commission was that 80% of the fines for the spill should be directed towards restoring the gulf. it has been used and abused for many years, from the oil industry to the shipping industry. under tremendous pressure. it needs to be more resilient. there has been a lot of work on what restoration would entail. it is an expensive undertaking. this will result in billions of dollars of fines. most of the money should be directed toward restoration in

the gulf. i think the people in the gulf deserve that. host: a recent politico story says congress is awol. frances beinecke is our guest. do you see the anniversary one year later as giving this more

attention in the public eye? guest: i think it is important to talk about this on the anniversary and i am glad you are covering it. the people who lived in the gulf of mexico have not forgotten about this for one minute. i think it is important for all of the people across the country to think about the cuts occurrences of this spill. in essence -- think about the consequences of this bill. in essence, this is because of our addiction to oil. we have 2% of the world oil reserves. we are going after everything. all of this is an indication that this is a way to remind and to bring into focus for people all across the country that we need a new energy plan.

we did focus on much more efficient at harvard cars, public transportation -- effie cient hybrid cars. as the price of oil goes up, the imperative is greater. host: our guest is the president of the nrdc, frances beinecke. you can find out more about our coverage of that this morning on a c-span.org. at 9:00, an introduction and welcome by the deputy secretary of the interior. one of the issues they will be looking at in one hour are the findings and recommendations on the national recommendation on the bp deepwater horizon oil spill. our guest served on that commission. richmond, va., on the republican line. caller: how are you doing? good morning.

congress is a wall on just about everything that they do -- awol on everything they do unless someone has something to gripe about. i like the epa and the unions. they go hand in hd. big business depends on dng things right. some people say they do not want to do things right and they just want to dump this stuff. you have these so-called the do- gooder's out there in congress and people in the businesses who say they are going to save the company money.

usually the tops of these companies want things done right. they take short cuts and they tried and say that the epa is against you and the epa is, too businesses, the epa, the unions, if they would all work together -- i am talking about the top level people. that it all would be done right. host: we will leave it there to get a response. guest: first of all, you have identified that we need epa playing a very important role. in the area of environmental protection, you want all companies operating at the same stdard. there are leaders who do want to do things right and clean of the environment, but it is important that every company be held to the same standard.

uniform standards across the country, so the costs are shared. that is the cost of innovation in the business for cleanup technologies. we saw ts in the oil spill. the zero accompanies, and there are a lot of them -- the oil companies, there are a lot of them and they do not operate at the same standard and that is indeed that the commission recommended. whether we are in a nuclear, coal, or in oil, you want environmental protection and safety standards set at the same level. usually what always happens when the epa comes out with a standard is the result of extensive dialogue with all interacted parties. the businesses, the unions, the environmental community, the local communities, and all interested parties have a public process where these proposals come out.

they are actively debated. we all promote our point of view from the direction that it should go in and usually somewhere in the middle of the interests are taken into consideration. 40 years of experience with the environment protection agency and with the fundamental and are not e protection laws have shown tremendous successes not only by protecting public health, and there is a lot of data to show that, but the technology that has been put in place has been done at less cost than the industry's have suggested and we have many, many examples of that. also, and this is something that people do not think about but is really important, those technologies are great developments in the united states. they have greeted companies,

jobs, and entire export industry because the u.s. environmental protection system is among the best in the world and we export that technology other around the world to countries that are grappling with their pollution woes now, too. there are a lot of positive stories and data coming out of the area of environmental regulation. the political football that it has become an elite most recently this congress -- has becomen most recently this congress. host: chattanooga, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having this on c- span today. i would like to make a couple of comments and then i have a question for y. the first, but like to make is i live it very close to where coal is in tennessee.

i would like to say how disappointed i was in the way epa handled that situation. it was so devastating to the area. i do not think anybody could really imagine how bad that really was. the last i heard a, the spill there was put in train cars and they paid a town in alabama to take the coal ash. i really do not call that cleanup . the water rates went up 28% so i have been disappointed in that. second of all, the federal government is now wanting to cut the funding for npr which really

lets a lot of the public know what is going on an environmentally. i am very disappointed about that. i feel like it is just another way for the republicans to countdown people and keep them less informed. furthermore, i have never had any congressperson ask me how i felt about the situation with the cuts on the environment protection agency. guest: that may just respond to that. you put a number of issues out there. first of all, the coal ashe was just another example like the branch disaster and the deepwater horizon that there are huge risks with the energy appetite whether it is in the

powe stor or the transportation sector, coal or oil. those industries have a huge impact on the daily lives of people all across this country. you are telling your story and i think it is a powerful one. it was not adequately regulated and the industry had rejected and opposed the regulations for years. once the coal ash occurred, it gave the epa more weight to to push deregulation. it is a running battle. the benefits to people who live adjacent to these facilities, whether you live in the gulf coast or the southeast where there is a tremendous amount of coal activity or downwind from the "plant, people across -- from the coal plant, people are affected.

the majority of people in the united states expect their air to be clean,expect their health to be protected. it is the government's responsibility to do that. taking the stories from local communities and explaining how these regulations, which washington loves to bandy about but not relate th to people's lives and experiees, connecting the dots and having a voice across america, such as your own, telling your story is a very important part of the national debate that is occurring on this issue right now. thank you for that. host: frances beinecke is our guess. president obama has talked about natural gas. there is a recent story in "the new york times" that talks about fracking.

they injectediesel fuel without a permit and breaks the law. there are questions about what can be used in the fracking process. what is your view on what that does to drinking water supplies? guest: hydraulic fracturing is a huge lead important issue in the haleheast where tehe sale is. "the new york times" story was an important one. this is not regulated. there is regulation by the states but no federal regulation. 10 years or more ago the natural gas specifically got a variants for hydraulic fracturing from the safer air water act, the

clean water act, why did they do that? could they have known that there was a problem with this therefore they were trying to avoid regulation? what is happening now is the story is being told the. the epa is now doing very extensive research on the consequences of the chemicals used in fracking. they have asked the companies to provide information on the chemical that they use. interestingly, the only company th refused to provide a list of chemicals was caliber and whic was one of the three companies eaged in the deepwater horizon spell. bp, transocean, and halliburton. that tells you something. the natural gas controversy right now is very similar to the controversy over mountaintop removal, coal mining, oilnd gas drilling. there are consequences to all of our sources of aossil fuel energy. it is the job of the federal

government, specifically the epa, to understand what the consequences of are those activities and to ensure that the environment and people suspected in the process. that is the central part of their mission and it is a mission that the public supports. there are communities across the country who are enraged at what is happening in their communities because of that kind of oversight and safeguards are not assured. the most powerful voices we have right now about what the consequees of our energy appetites are. host: joe from west virginia on our democratic line. caller: i would like to ask the host is c-span could possibly do a show on a laptop removal. mountaintop removal is a devastating issue for the

appellation -- appalachian mountain states. i am a retired union coal miner. mountaintop removal is devastating of west virginia. there have been over 900,000 acres in west virginia alone. not only do they deforest, decimate, and remove the living species, the animals, the trees, but they create these ballets by shearing off the tops of these mountains and -- these valleys y by shearing off the tops of leechmountaints and mountains. 1400 rivers and creeeks we

tested and they all exceeded the level of mercury. you are now recommended to eat fish that comes out of the rivers in west virginia. manzanillas, myron, -- manganese, iron, zinc. itas been contaminated since 2008 now. i would love to see c-span do a story on this. i wanted the epa to start enforcing their laws because here in west virginia we have a state certified program that has been given responsibility to enforce these problems and especially under gov. manchin, these laws have been completely ignored. if the laws were being enforced in west virginia, at least 50%- 80% of the problems would go

away. host: your response? guest: this is another part -- a powerful example. mountaintop removal is th story a huge part of west virginia. it is not only an abstract acreage with communities that people have lived in that have vanished. it has wiped out entire towns and required people to move. it is not only the tremendous environmental impact that the caller itemized says specifically that the destruction of people's lives but to a state that has tremendous beauty and bounty to the country as a whole. is this really what we want america totand for? why not get into a clean energy future where we can improve our effiency, the way we use energy, reduce our reliance on coal that is stripped off of the top of mountains, natural gas that is coming out of this

hydrofracking, oil taken from deepwater environments and destruction of these environments? weeeded to get serious. during my career, a different presidents have called for a clean energy future -- eight different presidts have called for a clean energy future. we still do not have it. each industry is getting a piece of national policy that allows them to move forward but we do not have a comprehensive program for the public at large that reduces the consequens to communities and people all acss america. it makes us an innovator in new industries, new technologies, creates businesses and jobs to put america ithe forefront. we really need to both control to the maximum extent possible the environmentalbuses coming out oour energy appetite, but equally important is to move into the clean energy future so that future generations do not

have the experience is >> this afternoon, the former speechwriters including pat decant reflect on their careers and how the shape the public perception of the 37th president. you can see that live here run c-span at 2:00 p.m. >> the job story on wireless is frankly a bigger one for the impact on the economy at large as opposed to the macroeconomic question about carriers. >> the speech technology officer on wireless mergers, and expanding broadbent in the u.s. joins us tonight